To wonder why the sham of marriage is still a thing

[munkynutts]

Genuinely.

Just take a look at MN, chockablock full of people who are on their second or third marriages - not judging, just a fact.

Most people couldn't give a fuck about the religious aspect. Most people in this country struggle to even make it to a Christmas service, but suddenly find their soulful side when it comes to marriage?

As well as the rise of one person having multiple marriages over the course of their life, weddings are becoming way more OTT and flamboyant too and we see how many threads there are on here about weddings and gift dilemmas. Once upon a time nee couples did actually need a toaster, now guests are expected to chip in so they can have an experience?!

It just seems to me that the days of sticking around in a relationship that doesn't work for you are long gone, for better or worse (better IMO).

So shouldn't we just cut this wedding crap and have civil partnerships for everyone? Because if you dont believe in god and dont believe in one true love to stick with come what may, then really, whats the fucking point other than to have a Princess Day? Wouldnt it be better to jist buy a nice dress, go down to town hall for civil partnership and then have a few close friends down the pub, rather than expecting guests to fork out for what is essentially a sham?

Then we have divorce and all the complication and entanglement that brings. I mean, just is it worth it?

Nd actually marriage is not necessarily fairer. A friend got utterly screwed when she married a man who cheated on her after two years. She had recently inherited a considerable amount of money. She was in her twenties, was suffering from depression and had no close family.

In the divorce he got half. He had lied, cheated and brought nothing to the union. It was a good two years work for him! No, not fair.

There are also threads detailing how when a widow/er remarries, all the family assets go to someone who has been around for a couple of years and the children of that family - even if it is their deceased parent who brought the money to the first union, get nothing. Fair - no , not at all.

@munkynutts you called marriage a sham. Those of us who chose to get married don't believe our civil unions are a sham. We chose to get married under the eyes of the law to have our partnerships legally recognised. Why criticise us for choosing to do so of our own volition?

How could you not know that you can have a non-religious marriage ceremony? That's likely to be what most people have! I'm getting married soon and I'm not actually allowed any religious readings or songs being played (I don't want any so it's fine).

@bananafish81
Thats fair enough, you're right I did. I retract the word "sham".

Think you need to do some reading up on the history of marriage.

Or just any book, actually.

I’m another church goer who is also happily married, (in a church). I really did care about the religious aspect, so civil partnership wouldn’t have been my preference.

I am sure splitting from a civil partnership is just as painful (and expensive) as ending a marriage, so I don’t really see what the benefit of only having civil partnerships for everyone.

Thinking about it, in my entire family and extended family, (so, parents, grandparents, siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles, parents-in-law, sisters-in-law), I think there is one divorced couple and 12 married couples, (or couples who stayed together till one half of the couple died), 2 happily unmarried couples and 1 single who has never been married. Also, thinking of my peer group, I know a lot of married couples and only one person has ever been divorced.

A 42% divorce rate means 58% make it work well enough.

@munkynuts : Ok i have a confession to make. I didnt actually realise that marriage wasnt necessarily religious. What i mean is I didnt realise you could get married in a registry office and it be free from any religious connotation.

Seriously? How can you not have known this? It's actually not permissible to have any reference to anything religious/god/deities in a register office ceremony.

DH and I got married 24 years ago in a Register Office. Nothing religious about it whatsoever. It was straightforward and simple, but meant a huge amount to us. It still does. And we are still married.

It's very odd to post inflammatory threads and then admit you've done no research into the subject you're complaining about.

Well, basically OP, religious marriage and faith are not separate things, but you didn't seem to notice that the bulk of weddings don't happen in churches anymore and so aren't religious weddings. Most high profile celeb weddings are held at a castle or country house. Few people actually get married in a church, and that's been the case for a good decade or more. If the majority of your aquaintences who've got married have gone to church to do that, then you live in an unusually religious area.

I didnt actually realise that marriage wasnt necessarily religious. What i mean is I didnt realise you could get married in a registry office and it be free from any religious connotation.

So you're posting in a goady manner on a subject you don't know much about?

I agree with OP. Don't even see the fuss about civil partnerships. The whole thing is a big waste of time and money IMO.

Second time married for me, neither time marred in church, but where other choose to wed has no impact on my life.

Why don’t you worry about something important or something that affects you?

You didnt realise you could get married in a registry office? Where have you been for the past probably 100 years??

I'm married, religion didn't enter my mind at all. It did enter my mind to make a legal commitment. We were consciously and publicly sharing our lives and assets, none of this ambiguous 'co-habiting' stuff where you can be left up shit creek for decisions you make as a couple, but pay for individually when one person ups and leaves.

I don't care whether you call it a marriage, civil partnership or what. I despair of people who have happily lived with their partner, had kids together and essentially eroded their independence bit by bit, without a legal commitment and the legal recourse.

I have been married for 29 years. I have noticed over the last 3 decades an increased emphasis on the wedding rather than the marriage. There is now a huge industry around the Perfect Day, the Dream Wedding, etc which seems to correspond to less thought being given to the seriousness of the step that is taken. It would be an exaggeration to say "The bigger the wedding, the shorter the marriage" but you get my drift....

I got married in church. I will be going to church at Christmas. Actually I went to church this morning. Should I not be married?

I think that (in some ways, sadly) that marriage has outlived its usefulness. Couples need a way to robustly protect their children. There is no need to have ‘weaker party’ if there is always the assumption that both parties will continue with their careers and share childcare. I suspect that this is the future.

Having said that, it sounds like they are going to reform the divorce laws to be no fault and to prevent the idea of supporting people for their entire lives except in exceptional circumstances, so maybe marriage itself will become less of a commitment.

And I agree with OP re OTT weddings.

Marriage always has been a sham, you've just previously bought into the moralistic interpretation of a device which effectively just controlled women, co-opted their potential to own property and freedom of choice, and perpetuated patriarchal power.

As women have gained greater power and a welfare state has been formed we're able to seek some economic freedom (although still not equality). This means we can leave unhappy or abusive situations, or men leave us without the guilt of being responsible for starving and killing their property. Hence the higher divorce rate.

I'm married- for me, it is legal protection and that's all. Everything else is just a loving partnership.

That is so cynical! While many marriages do end in divorce, most don't. I'm still married after 40 years, and so are most of my friends. Some of us had big church weddings, but most didn't. It isn't necessary. Indeed, you are THREE times more likely to split up if you aren't married.

What is sad, are the number of people having children without the security of marriage. Parenthood seems to have got so casual, putting too many kids into miserable situations.

Actually I'd be interested to know if people still do christenings anymore,

I've been married once, for twenty years, still happy. Why shouldn't I believe in marriage?

OP, why the sweeping statement about marriage being a sham? Of course loads of people on MN discuss problems in their marriage. It's a safe anonymous place to open your heart. There will never been an equal number of 'how long/happy/successful is your marriage' or 'why do you still love your DH after 10/20/30 years' threads because often threads about relationships are prompted by a crisis, and happy marriages don't need to constantly shout out how or why they are stable.

I agree with OP. Don't even see the fuss about civil partnerships. The whole thing is a big waste of time and money IMO.

I tend to think people who say these kinds of things have not experienced the downsides of not being married - the not being next of kin, not being allowed to visit a seriously ill partner in hospital, no automatic entitlement to inheritance if one partner dies, and so on.

you are THREE times more likely to split up if you aren't married

There are many reasons for that.

So you don't understand that can you can have a civil or church ceremony? The difference between marriage and civil partnership? Yet question why people make their choices? Maybe educate yourself first then before questioning other people's decisions!